Shawn Eldridge v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
May 24 2017, 9:50 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Megan Shipley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Shawn Eldridge, May 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A05-1610-CR-2369
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable Steven J. Rubick,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1607-CM-27670
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2369 | May 24, 2017 Page 1 of 4
[1] Shawn Eldridge (“Eldridge”) appeals two of three convictions of Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.1 He asserts, and the State concedes,
two of the counts should be vacated as they violate the continuous crime
doctrine. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On July 19, 2016, four officers responded to a report of a disturbance at a
residence. Antwon Eldridge (“Antwon”) requested assistance in removing his
brother, Eldridge, from Antwon’s premises. Eldridge, while appearing
confused, left after thirty minutes but then came right back. Upon his return,
one of the officers attempted to handcuff him. However, Eldridge resisted.
After “thirty (30) seconds to a minute” of resisting three of the officers, they
were able to take Eldridge into custody. (Tr. at 7.)
[3] On July 20, 2016, the State charged Eldridge with one count of Class A
misdemeanor trespass2 and three counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. Subsequently, the State requested and was granted dismissal of
the trespass charge. At a bench trial, Eldridge was found guilty of the three
counts of resisting law enforcement and sentenced to 67 days on each, to be
served concurrently.
1
Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2016).
2
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2 (2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2369 | May 24, 2017 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] Eldridge asserts two of his convictions should be vacated because although
three officers were involved in the incident, the resisting was “only one
continuous crime.” (Appellant’s Br. at 6.) The State agrees two of the
convictions should be vacated based on the fact his crime was one continuous
crime.
The continuing crime doctrine essentially provides that actions
that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal
offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness
of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single
transaction. [T]he continuing crime doctrine reflects a category
of Indiana’s prohibition against double jeopardy. . . . The
statutory elements and actual evidence tests [of double jeopardy,
as described in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind.1999),] are
designed to assist courts in determining whether two separate[ly]
chargeable crimes amount to the “same offense” for double
jeopardy purposes. The continuous crime doctrine does not seek
to reconcile the double jeopardy implications of two distinct[,]
chargeable crimes; rather, it defines those instances where a
defendant’s conduct amounts only to a single[,] chargeable
crime. In doing so, the continuous crime doctrine prevents the
state from charging a defendant twice for the same continuous
offense.
Chavez v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (internal citations
and quotations removed, emphasis in original), trans. denied.
[5] Although the counts were based on actions against three separate officers, the
actions constituted one continuous crime. Thus, we reverse and remand with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2369 | May 24, 2017 Page 3 of 4
instructions for the trial court to vacate two of Eldridge’s convictions of
resisting law enforcement.
[6] Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1610-CR-2369 | May 24, 2017 Page 4 of 4